Page last updated: January 26, 2015 11:32 AM

*** The Oberg/Cooper Rebuttal(s) ***

James Oberg ....Gordon Cooper

Here is my opening response to portions of "IN SEARCH OF
GORDON COOPER'S UFOs" by James Oberg (originally submitted
by Dean Kanipe). It is definitely "for distribution" as will be the
next seven or so documented essays I will be supplying in rebuttal
to Mr. Oberg's essay. For those who feel my research is solid and
worthy of viewing in a more permanent setting, this author also
gives his permission for the free posting of these rebuttals on any
WWW home page, as long as my name is included as the creator of
the posts along with my E-mail address.
Mr.Oberg's essay and my full rebuttal will be archived on the web
at: http://myweb.li.net/rjcohen/
(jc 3/28/02: Now permanently at CohenUFO.org)
When I first wrote this I thought to myself, "If Cooper still
stands by his statement regarding a claimed landing at Edwards
AFB, mentioned by Mr. Oberg in 'In Search of Gordon Cooper's
UFOs' (beginning ¶ 42), this lends yet further support to three
cases I have analyzed and come to the conclusion are verified
and definitely related to one another. The claimed Edwards
AFB case occurred in the same year." I was unaware of this
case until I read Mr. Oberg's essay. Actually, in retrospect I
came to realize, the reverse is also undeniably true;

"my research concerning several 1957 cases lends strong
support to what Cooper has stated regarding the alleged
landing at Edwards AFB."

Although you will have to wait approximately 6 essays to get to
it, those with patience will be amply rewarded. I've got quite
a few important, solid facts to present along the way.
(jc 9/20/2008: No longer true. You don't have to wait.
I added the above link so that readers can see the results
of an investigation regarding that specific Edwards AFB
case. When you've read it, come back and read the rest
of this. It has been a good number of years and many
people have forgotten what happened along the way.)

PREFACE:
One of UFO skeptics greatest criticisms concerning UFOLOGY
concerns the fact that, as they see it, a large number of UFO
cases are anecdotal in nature and that, as they claim, there is no
hard, reproducible documented evidence to back up the stories
told by the various claimants. This claim is totally false. On the
surface, this would appear to be true as there are a great number
of cases which do fall into this category. Because of this fact,
one must have a great familiarity with the idiom and its history
to discover that this elusive evidence does indeed exist.
Some skeptics, being so certain of the impossibility of the
existence of solid evidence, view it wearing blinders, never
digging deep enough to find what they are almost certain does
not exist in the first place or, lacking the hints provided by a
thorough knowledge of UFO history, simply look in all the
wrong places. In-depth familiarity with the history of the topic
and where some of this evidence might be hiding is paramount
to discovering its ultimate reality.
One important question an intelligent person should ask is "Have
there been any well-respected scientists who have studied the
topic in depth and, subsequent to their analyses, come to the
conclusion that UFOs exist as apparent craft and exhibit traits
beyond the cutting edge of our technology? (N.B. UFO =
unidentified flying objects displaying unusual characteristics and
technology which seem to preclude them from being created on
this planet.) A second, obvious question should be, "Exactly
what did they find?" The answer to the first is unequivocally,
"yes." As to the second, I will present documented information
concerning two of these scientists, what their research uncovered
and how it changed every open-minded person's thinking regarding
the study of UFOs.
One of the scientists, given negative mention by Mr. Oberg, is
none other than Dr. J. Allen Hynek, who was the Air Force's main
astronomical consultant to Project Blue Book for twenty years.

J. Allen Hynek

Within that time period, all official documentation in existence
informs us he was closer to the official first hand Air Force
evidence regarding UFOs than any other civilian scientist on
record. It was his job was to expose UFOs as misinterpretations
of normal astronomical phenomena, etc., (For those not familiar,
Blue Book was the Air Force's alleged main study on UFOs. Why I
used the word "alleged" will become apparent the further we
proceed.) Amazingly enough, it was the Air Forces' own scientific
consultant who actually proved to us that the Air Force has not
been completely honest with us concerning the reality of UFOs.
Solid evidence as to how and why Hynek gradually arrived at this
conclusion will also be displayed for the reader.
After presenting this recorded, verifiable information, I will
present three well documented cases from 1957. I selected these
cases because Mr. Oberg specifically discussed a claim that Gordon
Cooper made concerning an alleged landing at Edwards Air Force
base in 1957. I believe these cases, when examined in
relationship to each other, demonstrate a strong probability that
the case against Cooper is not as "cut and dried" as Mr. Oberg has
indicated. One of the aforementioned cases, Kirtland AFB (11/1957),was analyzed in depth by the Air Force, the Condon Committee, and finally by Dr. James McDonald, then senior physicist and professorof meteorology at the Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Universityof Arizona.
This information will not only achieve the goal I have just
mentioned but, in the process, will also give lie to some of the
comments made regarding not only Hynek's & McDonald's motivation
but also, the overall quality of research performed by Dr. James
McDonald, Dr. Hynek and, at the minimum, some UFO researchers.
Anyone willing to check the sources I provide can decide for themselves whose research is more complete, accurate and valid.

James McDonald

The three cases I have mentioned contain factual. concrete
evidence that proves beyond a shadow of doubt that some
UFOs can definitely be referred to as "craft", as they contain
crucial evidence identifying some UFOs as craft of an unknown
type. All of the above will be fully supported and displayed in
a series of seven (or so) articles which I will post one at a time,
to give people a chance to both absorb them, check the accuracy
of the material displayed therein and find flaws, where they may
exist.
However, some brief comments concerning several points from
Mr. Oberg's essay are in order before proceeding any further.
----------

INITIAL COMMENTS CONCERNING MR. OBERG'S ESSAY

Mr. Oberg's essay was received "on-line" with the page numbers
apparently indicated at the bottom of each page but not saying
"end p. 1, etc.". I have ignored page numbers and have instead
numbered his paragraphs sequentially from beginning to end,
hopefully to reduce problems researchers might have in locating
those discussed items.
The following were observed as extremely short paragraphs:
#'s 12, 22, 39 and 71. (between 2-4 lines each)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
J.C. Note: If you become bored with parts 1a/b, feel free to
skip to part 2 for a tidbit of documented evidence. Unfortunately,
what follows is somewhat tedious but absolutely necessary
considering the charges Mr. Oberg has made. Hopefully, you'll
read it all. Those with intestinal fortitude, please continue.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many of the things Mr. Oberg said in his essay appeared to
be accurate however, I found it filled with unsupported innuendo.
I disagree with several of the conclusions reached and I'm not so
certain of the veracity of others as some are anecdotal in nature
with not enough supporting documentation to confirm some of the
things he says. (Links are to Mr. Oberg's original essay.) As an example:
----------

re: COOPER'S TESTIMONY TO THE UNITED NATIONS:

JC: It was not shown from where this information was derived.
Was Mr. Oberg present to observe this? In any of the accounts I
had read concerning the aforementioned UN meeting in question,
it was never mentioned that people were embarrassed in the least.
I have not found Mr. Oberg's name mentioned in the minutes of the
meeting. I did, however, find the following names who were among
those who testified: Dr. J. Allen Hynek, Lt. Col. Larry Coyne,
ex-astronaut Gordon Cooper, Dr. Jacques Vallee & Stanton T.
Friedman. 1
b. In a further analysis of those same ¶ 4 comments: It was
stated:

J.C. Although much of what was said in the preceding paragraph
may well have been true (and which parts we cannot be sure, as
specific documentation was not offered to support same), it has
not been adequately demonstrated that Cooper had a "problem"
at the time. Also, I am not certain why this material was included
in the preceding dialogue except perhaps to impugn Cooper's
character by implying that he was somehow in "cahoots" with a
"crackpot," corrupt dictator; or that people reporting UFOs must,
by association, be crackpots too. The fact of the matter is that
the United Nations had previously agreed to have a conference
concerning the subject of UFOs. They certainly weren't forced to
have this discussion. It is a rather large body of nations. If
the topic was totally absurd, they wouldn't have agreed to
wasting their time on it in the first place. It most likely was
petitioned and had support.
As part of the explanatory memorandum Grenada had made in its
position paper, the following statement was to be found:

"As had been shown by the studies recently commissioned
by some countries, many states were deeply concerned with
regard to the UFO phenomenon and recognized the urgent
need to bring up to date research in the field and to examine
the potential repercussions of that phenomenon on security,
technological progress and the well-being of individual
nations." 2

jc addendum 3/25/02: Click here for: Hynek's speech to the UN
The truth of the matter is that various countries throughout the
world, including our own, had been having reoccurring, documented
UFO sightings for quite some time prior to and leading up to this
particular historic meeting. I am sure people out there reading
this from various countries can supply some of the newspaper
articles which would confirm this previous statement.
As Mr. Oberg aptly pointed out, Cooper wasn't the first pilot to
claim this. A small but solid portion of the evidence in this regard
was presented to the United States congress fourteen years prior,
in 1964, in the form of an 188 page document titled "The UFO
Evidence," edited by Richard Hall, former Assistant Director and
Acting Director of NICAP (National Investigations Committee on
Aerial Phenomena). Richard HallThe UFO Evidence was a 200,000 word documentary report which
contained a compilation of approximately 746 documented sightings
by Air Force, Army, Navy & Marine personnel, pilots and aviation
experts, other military personnel, observations by professional
scientists and engineers, including astronomers and aeronautical
engineers.
In reality, the main reason the UN did not follow-up further on
the proceedings had mostly to do with economics and ongoing
world politics. It was not that the prestigious body of nations
did not believe some of the documented reports that had been
presented but rather, it did not have the monetary resources
to do much about such an elusive phenomena even though it
had been generally reported around the world. Since the
sightings were "sightings" only and not, at that time, adequately
documented in the civilian sector as a specific threat or danger
to the population, more urgent immediate "earthly" problems
simply took precedence over those which displayed themselves
in such an erratic (albeit "persistent") fashion. It was a lot easier
to ignore them than to deal with them. Our own congress back
in 1964 had a similar reaction; congressmen were impressed
but did not react as a whole for the same reasons. 3 Our Air
Force, Department of Defense and NASA took the position, and
continued to claim, there was nothing to the situation and that
most sightings had been explained. 4 Therefore, more pressing
domestic and world problems precluded this at that time, but....
the UFOs refused to go away.

Footnotes to "Oberg/Cooper rebuttal.1a:"

1 Summary of the UN meeting was published in: "The
International UFO Reporter" . vol 3 . No. 10/11 . Oct/Nov 1978
2 Ibid
3 The following are some quotes from congressmen which were
on file at NICAP and included in "The UFO Evidence." Some were
received after evidence was sent to members of congress in June
1960. They illustrate the "atmosphere" of that era regarding UFOs
and document the comments I have made in this regard:

Congressman Joseph E. Karth (D. Minn.) - 8/24/60

"As a member of the House Committee on Science and
Astronautics, I, of course, have had contact with high
Air Force officers and have had opportunity to hear their
comments on and off the record on the subject of
unidentified flying objects. Despite being confronted
with seemingly unimpeachable evidence that such
phenomena exist, these officers give little credence
to the many reports on the matter. When pressed on
specific details the experts refuse to answer on grounds
that they are involved in the nation's security and cannot
be discussed publicly . . .I will continue to seek a definite
answer to this most important question."

"I am wondering if we ought now reexamine our policy
with regard to Unidentified Flying Objects. Won't you
kindly suggest to your associates that the matter be
considered? I am apprehensive that right now, in the
middle of a campaign, some concrete and well-documented
incident may occur, and a sensational revelation could
really hurt. After all, although the UFOs are unknown
devices, there seems to be enough evidence available to
convince that they are real rather than imaginary.
Therefore what harm could complete frankness do?. . . "

Senator Kenneth B. Keating (R. N.Y.) - 6/5/63

"I want to assure you that as a high officer in the
military myself, I am not overawed or overimpressed
by some of the conclusions reached by Air Force officers.
As you know, I have no hesitancy in taking issue with
other government agencies as to the dangers facing
our country. . .I am sorry that there seems to be nothing
which I can add to the UFO situation at the present
time."

Senator William Proxmire (D. Wis.) - 1/31/63

"The NICAP report (outline) is a fine document which
does much to substantiate the allegation made. You
probably noted my remarks that 'The very fact that so
many inexplicable incidents have occurred is reason
enough for a thorough investigation.' I am going to
contact the Department of Defense on this matter."

4. Congressman Thomas Ludlow Ashley (D. Ohio) - 7/14/58

"I have made a number of inquiries of the Air Force
relative to its activities in connection with these
unidentified flying objects, but have invariably received
comment that evidence to date is too inconclusive to
sustain any theory but that these objects, are 'hoaxes,
hallucinations, or normal meteorological manifestations.'
I share your concern over the secrecy that continues to
shroud our intelligence activities on this subject, and I
am in complete agreement with you that our greatest
national need at this time is the dissemination of
accurate information upon which responsible public
opinion can be formulated. . . "

Senator Jacob K. Javits (R. N.Y.) - 10/25/62

"I appreciate your views regarding the aerial phenomena.
As you know, the Department of Defense and NASA have
repeatedly denied the existence of such objects."